Steve Haywood wrote: > On 28/01/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I am afraid you have this wrong, Will. The redundancies were not even a >>> result of the DEFRA cuts, let alone a direct result. >> Really? Then one of our sources is incorrect. Mine is BW. Where >> did you get your facts from? > > You must stop treating BW as some homogeneous organisation which you can > just tap into when you want the 'truth' of a situation. Eugene Baston is not > the received word of God, Will.
Steve, you are sounding more like a troll everyday. You must be niaive if you think that my only point of reference in BW is Eugene. Having said that, I did check with Eugene and I know what he told you and it was certainly not what you are trying to spin here. >There are others in BW management who, > off-record, are not peddling the official line. There those at office and > bankside level, and those who represent them, who have been aware of BW's > redundancy policy for some time. There are some who were aware of their > jobs being at risk long before the DEFRA cuts were announced. > ..and that redundancy policy is......? > But as it happens, with regards to this particular subject, even Eugene > will confirm that there was a long term strategy for 180 'redundancies' (ie > so there should be no quibbling over language, there was a long term plan to > phase out 180 jobs) I don't argue with that. Yes, as I said in my previous post, there were plans to reduce headcount. However, that reduction was to be achieved by natural attrition...as people choose to leave they would not be replaced. That is not redundancy. It is good management practice to ensure that an organisation doesn't have a surplus of employees. Cheers Will > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
